Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 4729
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
`INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:16-CV-01425-JRG-RSP
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:16-CV-01424-JRG-RSP
`
`Defendants.
`
`FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS
`INTERNATIONAL LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. and HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-1
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 4730
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`J.
`K.
`
`FISCHER PATENTS ........................................................................................................ 1 
`A.
`“USB” (all asserted claims) Is Limited To USB 2.0 and Related Versions .......... 1 
`1.
`“USB” should be construed consistently across the asserted claims. ........ 2 
`2.
`“USB” should be limited to USB at the time of the claimed
`invention. ................................................................................................... 3 
`“USB” components are specified in USB. ................................................. 3 
`3.
`FISI’s claim construction approach should be rejected again. .................. 4 
`4.
`If “USB” has no temporal limitation, the claims are indefinite. ................ 5 
`5.
`USB Components Require No Construction Outside of the Court’s
`Construction of “USB” .......................................................................................... 5 
`1.
`“USB Connector” (’111: 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17; ’586: 9, 12) ...................... 5 
`2.
`“USB controller” and “USB communication path” ................................... 8 
`3.
`“USB port,” “USB cable,” and “USB interface” ....................................... 9 
`“USB Adapter” (’111: all claims) .......................................................................... 9 
`The “USB limits” terms are indefinite ................................................................. 10 
`“Abnormal” Terms ............................................................................................... 11 
`“Adapter” (’111/’550: all claims) ........................................................................ 12 
`“Microprocessor” (’586: 11) ................................................................................ 13 
`“Identification signal” (’111, ’586: all claims; ’766: 17 and 19) ......................... 13 
`“Without USB enumeration” ............................................................................... 14 
`“Generate” / “generating” (’111: 1, 17) ............................................................... 15 
`Means Plus Function Terms (’111: 18) ............................................................... 15 
`1.
`means for generating an identification signal that indicates to the
`mobile devices that the power socket is not a USB hub or host .............. 15 
`means for coupling the power output and identification signal to
`the mobile device ..................................................................................... 15 
`VESELIC PATENTS....................................................................................................... 16 
`A.
`“battery charge controller” (’319, ’514: all claims) ............................................. 16 
`B.
`“voltage drop across [a/the] battery charge controller” (’319, ’514: all
`claims) .................................................................................................................. 18 
`“voltage sensing circuit” (’319, ’514: all claims) ................................................ 21 
`“external driving semiconductor” terms are indefinite (’319: 2; ’514: 2) ........... 21 
`“power” (all claims) ............................................................................................. 22 
`
`2.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`i
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-2
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 4731
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`H. 
`I. 
`J. 
`K. 
`L.
`
`“such that . . . the rechargeable battery receives a remainder of [the] power
`available from the battery charge controller” / “such that . . . the
`rechargeable battery receives a remainder of the received power” (’319:
`20) ........................................................................................................................ 24 
`“reference voltage” (’319: 4, 5, 10; ’514: 4, 5, 8; ’655: 1, 3, 8) .......................... 25 
`“switch” / “semiconductor switch” (all claims) ................................................... 27 
`Preambles are limiting ......................................................................................... 27 
`“USB” / “non-USB Source” / “Universal serial bus (USB) port” ....................... 28 
`The parties dispute the structures for certain means-plus-function claims .......... 29
`“Adjust” (’655: 5) ………………………………………………………………30
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-3
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 4732
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................27
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................9
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,
`6:15-cv-163-JRG-JDL, 2016 WL 1228767 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016) ............................3, 4, 7
`
`DisplayLink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp.,
`615 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................3, 4, 6
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l. Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................8
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................12
`
`Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc.,
`2007 WL 5601497 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2007) .....................................................................3, 4
`
`Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership,
`778 F.3d 1320, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1770 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................21
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elec’s. Co., Ltd. et. al.,
`17-cv-145-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2017) ........................................................................1
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Kopykake Enters., Inc. v. Lucks Co.,
`264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................29
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .........................................3
`
`iii
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-4
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 4733
`
`Mass. Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................3
`
`Microlinc, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2013 WL 2471551 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2013) ...........................................................................13
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) INC.,
`No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1435603 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2016) ............................1
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................5, 12, 20, 24
`
`O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., Inc.,
`115 F.3d 1576, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1777 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................21
`
`PC Connector Sols. LLC v. SmartDisk Corp.,
`406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................3, 7, 29
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................3
`
`SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc.,
`497 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................12
`
`Suffolk Techs. LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`942 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Va. 2013), aff’d, 752 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................14
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Janam Techs. LLC,
`605 F. Supp. 2d 618 .................................................................................................................23
`
`Trading Technologies Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1805 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................18
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................2, 4
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-5
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 4734
`
`Defendants respectfully submit their proposed constructions of the disputed terms in this
`
`action. It bears emphasis that these cases are needlessly complicated due to Fundamental
`
`Innovation Systems International LLC’s (“FISI” or “Plaintiff”) assertion of over 90 claims against
`
`the LG defendants, and over 50 claims against the Huawei defendants.1 On January 31, 2018, the
`
`Court issued its claim construction order construing almost all of the terms at issue. Fundamental
`
`Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. Samsung Elec’s. Co., Ltd. et. al., Case No. 17-cv-145-JRG-RSP
`
`(“Samsung”), Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) (“Order”). While FISI has expressly adopted
`
`certain of the Court’s constructions, FISI’s proposed constructions for such terms, however, are
`
`incorrect and attempts to re-argue that the Court’s constructions (e.g., “USB port”) encapsulate
`
`FISI’s position. See Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 123 (“Brief”); Samsung,
`
`Dkt. 153 (“FISI Objs.”). The Court rejected FISI’s arguments in support of those constructions
`
`and the District Court overruled FISI’s objections. Id., Dkt. 157. Collateral estoppel prevents FISI
`
`from rearguing positions that were rejected, and the Court should maintain those constructions
`
`here.2 Moreover, FISI’s proposed constructions should be rejected because they are improperly
`
`based on the accused products instead of the intrinsic record.
`
`I.
`
`FISCHER PATENTS3
`
`A.
`
`“USB” (all asserted claims) Is Limited To USB 2.0 and Related Versions
`
`The Court has construed the “USB” term as recited in each of the Asserted Claims as
`
`“Universal Serial Bus as described in Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision 2.0 and related
`
`versions of this standard at the time of the claimed invention.” Order at 20-22. Similarly, the
`
`1 Defendants have approached FISI to negotiate a reduction in the number of asserted claims and
`a like reduction in the number of prior art combinations. However, FISI has rejected Defendants’
`attempt to reach a compromise.
`2 See Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) INC., No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG-RSP,
`2016 WL 1435603, at *23 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2016).
`3 Ex. 1, U.S. Pat. No. 7,239,111; Ex. 2, U.S. Pat. No. 7,834,586; Ex. 3, U.S. Pat. No. 8,232,766;
`Ex. 4, U.S. Pat. No. 8,624,550.
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-6
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 4735
`
`Court construed the USB component terms – such as USB connector, USB controller, USB
`
`communication path – to have their plain meaning in view of the Court’s construction of the
`
`“USB.” Id. at 20-22, 28-31. Defendants agree. In response, FISI apparently adopts the Court’s
`
`construction of “USB” and certain USB component terms, while doubling-down on its rejected
`
`position that the others should be construed individually and outside the scope of “USB.” In doing
`
`so, FISI changed its proposed constructions – broadening their scope even further – for all but one
`
`USB component term after the Order issued, weeks after the close of claim construction discovery
`
`here, and merely days before filing its brief. That is improper because Defendants were stripped
`
`of their opportunity to obtain discovery, and therefore prejudiced. For that reason alone, the Court
`
`should reject such proposed constructions. Nonetheless, the Court rejected FISI’s positions, and
`
`its new constructions change nothing. Id.
`
`1.
`
`“USB” should be construed consistently across the asserted claims.
`
`The Fischer claim language indicates no special or unusual use of “USB.” As the Court
`
`concluded, “USB” is used within the specifications to refer to a particular “industry standard.”
`
`Order at 17. It is also used throughout the claims to identify well-known USB components and
`
`features: e.g., USB port, USB connector, USB interface, and USB cable. The specification
`
`likewise uses “USB” with no suggestion that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer or tried
`
`to redefine the term. ’550 passim, 1:57-60; Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d
`
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (lexicographer “must ‘clearly set forth’” alternative definition).
`
`Indeed, the provisional application’s embodiment is based on a design document that incorporates
`
`USB 2.0 by reference. Ex. 5 at 19384. This is consistent with the central motivation of the
`
`invention: to achieve interoperability by using standard USB components. ’550 at 1:46-2:20. As
`
`the Court found, contemporary dictionary definitions of “USB” confirm that USB was a well-
`
`known standard. Order at 14; Exs. 6-10. As the Court concluded, “USB” should thus be construed
`
`2
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-7
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 4736
`
`consistently throughout the claims to be the technology disclosed in the USB standard. Order at
`
`20; DisplayLink Corp. v. Magic Control Tech. Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1055-57 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2009) (“[POSAs] understood USB to be the technology disclosed in the 2.0 specification (or the
`
`earlier versions) and what they would necessarily look to in order to design a USB compliant
`
`product”); Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`2.
`
`“USB” should be limited to USB at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`The Court concluded that “USB” is limited to the USB standards that existed at the time
`
`of the claimed invention, expressly excluded future-arising USB standards. Order at 20 (relying
`
`heavily on Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); Mass.
`
`Inst. Of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that terms “should
`
`be defined by what was known in the art at the time”); PC Connector Sols. LLC v. SmartDisk
`
`Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1361-64 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“standard input/output port” limited to ports
`
`existing at time of filing); Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., 6:15-cv-163-JRG-JDL,
`
`2016 WL 1228767, *8-9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016) (“BaseT” limited to BaseT at time of the
`
`invention, excluding after-arising BaseT); Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc.,
`
`2007 WL 5601497, *16-17 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2007). Indeed, the Court expressly rejected
`
`FISI’s arguments and cases, and it makes no new argument that requires a different conclusion.
`
`3.
`
` “USB” components are specified in USB.
`
`As the Court concluded, once determined that “USB” means technology described in the
`
`USB standard at the time of the invention, the “USB” component terms are easily understood
`
`without further construction, where, as here, the Fischer specification refers to these USB
`
`components in terms of the USB standard at the time. Order at 20-21, 29-31; see also e.g.,
`
`DisplayLink, 615 F. Supp. 2d at 1055-57 (“[POSAs] understood USB to be the technology
`
`3
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-8
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 4737
`
`disclosed in the 2.0 specification . . . and what they would necessarily look to in order to design a
`
`USB compliant product”). For example, the Court concluded that “USB connector” refers to the
`
`connectors specified in USB at the time. Order at 20-21; Ex. 11 § 6.2; Ex. 13 § 6.2; Ex. 14 § 3.3.
`
`FISI contends that a standards-based claim term cannot be construed with reference to the
`
`standard unless the patent incorporates the standard by reference. Brief at 3. This is incorrect.
`
`Courts frequently construe standardized terms with respect to the specific standard. DisplayLink,
`
`615 F. Supp. 2d at 1055-57; Chrimar, 2016 WL 1228767, at *8-9; Extreme, 2007 WL 5601497,
`
`at *17. It would have been clear to a POSA which standard “USB” refers to - the ubiquity of USB
`
`was the invention’s point. ’550 at 1:57-60; 3:47-49, 3:61-64; Ex. 5 at 19356-57; Ex. 15 at 18668.
`
`Moreover, the inventors based their embodiment on a design document that did incorporate the
`
`USB 2.0 standard by reference. Ex. 5 at 19384; ’550 at 1:41-42. And FISI itself adopts the USB
`
`standard in numerous constructions, including USB interface, USB port, USB cable, the power-
`
`related terms, and data condition terms. The only difference is that FISI attempts to remove the
`
`parts of the USB standard it wants while stripping away the parts it does not.
`
`4.
`
`FISI’s claim construction approach should be rejected again.
`
`FISI offers numerous different constructions for USB terms, contrary to Federal Circuit
`
`law that claim terms “presumptively should carry the same meaning throughout the patent.”
`
`Chamberlain, 516 F.3d at 1337. FISI does this in contravention of the intrinsic record, which - far
`
`from redefining the industry-standard term “USB” numerous different times - is built on a design
`
`incorporating the USB 2.0 standard by reference. Ex. 5 at 19364, 19384; ’550 at 1:41-42. The
`
`patentee nowhere acts as its own lexicographer to redefine “USB.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.
`
`To the contrary, as the Court concluded, the patentees claimed an invention with reference to
`
`standard USB components. E.g., Order at 29-31; ’550 at 2:19-20, 3:2-10, 3:46-49, 3:61-4:8, 6:3-
`
`4
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-9
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 4738
`
`28; Ex. 5 at 19356-57; Ex. 15 at 18668. FISI’s arguments to capture later-arising USB standard
`
`technology that did not exist at the time of the invention should be rejected again.
`
`5.
`
`If “USB” has no temporal limitation, the claims are indefinite.
`
`Without temporal limitation, “USB” would cover anything and everything adopted by a
`
`consensual standardization organization under the USB umbrella. The meaning of claim terms
`
`would shift from day to day based on the decisions of industry participants unrelated to the
`
`technology or disclosure of the patents. This is inconsistent with the statutory public-notice
`
`function of definiteness. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2130 (2014).
`
`B.
`
`USB Components Require No Construction Outside of the Court’s
`Construction of “USB”
`
`The Court has concluded the USB component terms (USB connector, USB cable, USB
`
`port, USB interface, USB communications path, USB controller) be construed in their plain
`
`meaning in light of its construction of “USB.” Order at 20-22, 29-31. To the extent the Court
`
`seeks to clarify such terms, each term can be construed as “[term] specified in USB” - for example,
`
`“connector specified in USB.” Such constructions are consistent with the Court’s Order.
`
`1.
`
`“USB Connector” (’111: 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17; ’586: 9, 12)
`
`The Court & Defendants
`FISI
`No construction necessary outside of “USB”;
`a component for electrically coupling a
`Alternatively: Connector specified in USB
`USB device, hub, host or adapter
`The Court construed “USB connector” as “[p]lain meaning (in light of the Court’s
`
`construction of ‘USB,’ above).” Order at 22. Defendants agree. The claims use the term “USB
`
`connector” in its ordinary sense with no special meaning suggested. E.g., ’111, claim 17. As the
`
`Court concluded, the specification likewise describes “USB connector” in its ordinary sense to
`
`encompass both physical and electrical connectivity. Order at 20-21. Given that “USB connector”
`
`is a well-known component in USB, and the patentees showed no intent to redefine it, a POSA
`
`5
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-10
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 4739
`
`would naturally understand it with reference to the USB standard at the time. DisplayLink, 615 F.
`
`Supp. 2d at 1055-57; Ex. 11 at 85; Ex. 13 at 86.
`
`While FISI proposes a construction different than in the Samsung Case and in its P.R. 4-3,
`
`which it proposed after discovery, FISI simply reasserts the same previously rejected arguments,
`
`which the District Court did not reverse. Samsung, Dkt. 157. FISI’s construction redefines “USB
`
`connector” to strip out its physical aspects and erase its connection to the USB 2.0 standard. FISI
`
`does this to capture future-arising connector technologies including Micro-USB (2007), USB
`
`Type-C (2014), and even Apple Lightning (2012). This construction contradicts the principle that
`
`claims should not be read to cover future-arising standards – black-letter law the Court has adopted
`
`in expressly rejecting FISI’s argument. See id.; supra at 3. It is also without basis in the intrinsic
`
`or extrinsic evidence. The word “connector” itself, and the context in which it is used in the claims,
`
`connotes physical (not just electrical) connectivity. E.g., ’111, claim 17 (“a USB connector for
`
`coupling the USB adapter to the mobile device.”) (emphasis added). When the patentee meant to
`
`claim the purely electrical connectivity aspect i.e., Vbus, D+, and D- electrical wires without
`
`claiming a USB connector, it did so. E.g. ’550 claim 1 (“a USB VBUS line”) and claim 5 (“D+
`
`line and D-line”). The specification likewise makes clear that “USB connector” is a physical
`
`component that mates with other connectors, as noted above. ’550 at 6:21-23, 7:9-11. And of
`
`course, the USB standard itself describes USB connectors heavily in terms of their mechanical
`
`(physical) aspects. Ex. 11 § 6. In sum, a POSA reading the term “USB connector,” with no
`
`indication that the patentees acted as a lexicographer, would understand that USB connectors are
`
`simply those specified in USB - not after-arising connectors. Ex. 12 ¶¶ 21, 24-28, 32-34, 55, 64;
`
`Ex. 16 at 20; Ex. 17. Indeed, as the Court ruled, “adopting [FISI’s] proposal would tend to confuse
`
`rather than clarify the scope of the claims . . . .” Order at 14.
`
`FISI’s objections to the Court’s construction have already been rejected. First, FISI argues
`
`6
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-11
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 4740
`
`that “USB 2.0 does not describe a USB connector for use with a USB adapter,” and that USB
`
`connectors described in USB 2.0 “are located solely on a USB device, hub or host.” Brief at 7.
`
`The Court has already rejected similar arguments in the context of construing, for example, “USB
`
`communication path,” stating that “whether an instrumentality accused of being a claimed
`
`‘adapter’ has a ‘USB communication path’ is a question of fact for the finder of fact to evaluate in
`
`light of the relevant USB standards.” Order at 30. Second, FISI contends that the “host connector
`
`in USB 2.0 supports the provision of USB differential signaling and participation in enumeration”
`
`while the USB connector in the purportedly inventive USB adapter “supports the transmission of
`
`an identification signal.” Brief at 7-8. That purported distinction is inaccurate. Tellingly, FISI
`
`does not – because it cannot – contend that the USB connector in USB 2.0 cannot support
`
`transmission of an identification signal, which even its expert concedes can be any signal that has
`
`an electrical property of any voltage, current, resistance, or pulse width. Ex. 17 at 91:8-94:4 (“I
`
`would say an electrical signal is any electrical signal”). Nor does FISI contend that the claimed
`
`USB connector cannot perform any of the steps of USB enumeration through differential signaling.
`
`That is because FISI’s proposed construction of the term “without USB enumeration” inherently
`
`requires that the USB connector be capable of performing at least one step of USB enumeration.
`
`Third, FISI argues that POSAs knew that new USB connectors were being developed.4 Brief at
`
`8-9. It does not follow that a patentee may claim after-arising technology a decade before it exists.
`
`PC Connector, 406 F.3d at 1361-64; Chrimar, 2016 WL 1228767 at *8-9. A modern USB Type-
`
`C plug sent back in time to a POSA in 2001 would not meet the mechanical requirements of USB
`
`at the time and could not plug into any known receptacle. Type-C connectors also operate
`
`
`4 FISI’s citations to an On-the-Go (“OTG”) PowerPoint Presentation without any additional
`support, is insufficient to show that a POSA had knowledge that such connectors were part of the
`USB standards at the time of the claimed invention. Indeed, the OTG specification appears to
`have been promulgated by the USB-IF after the invention date for the claims alleged by FISI.
`7
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-12
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 4741
`
`differently. For example, Type-C connectors have configuration channel pins that are devoted to
`
`configuration and are used to “[d]etect attach[ment] of USB ports” “[e]stablish data roles between
`
`two attached ports,” and “[d]iscover and configure VBUS.” Ex. 16 § 4.5.1; Ex. 12 ¶¶ 25-26, 64.
`
`A POSA would therefore not consider it a USB connector. Ex. 12 ¶ 64. Indeed, such a plug would
`
`have the same problem as the proprietary interfaces the inventors criticized. ’550 at 1:46-2:15.
`
`Fourth, FISI argues that USB defines captive cable assemblies. But in a captive cable assembly,
`
`one end is a USB connector (Series “A”) while the other is a “vendor-specific connect means” -
`
`i.e., not a USB connector but a vendor-specific connector. Ex. 12 ¶ 33-34, 66. The USB standard
`
`nowhere defines “USB connector” to encompass these vendor-specific (i.e., non-USB) connectors.
`
`Id.; Ex. 14 at 8 (distinguishing USB connectors from cable assemblies). FISI’s only support for a
`
`“vendor-specific” connect means being a USB connector comes from outside the USB standard,
`
`in what appears to be ambiguous labels on a handful of consumer-facing instruction manuals and
`
`products. This is the least persuasive form of extrinsic evidence - indeed, as consumers are not
`
`POSAs, it is not evidence of a POSA’s understanding at all. Ex. 12 ¶ 66. Further, the manuals
`
`make clear their connectors are the “proprietary” connectors disparaged by Fischer. Ex. 19 at 24-
`
`GB (“These USB cable and jack are designed for this digital still camera only.”); cf. ’550 at 1:61-
`
`67, 2:19-20.
`
`2.
`
`“USB controller” and “USB communication path”
`
`The Court construed both “USB communication path” and “USB controller” to be their
`
`plain meaning in light of its construction of “USB.” Order at 20, 22, 29-31. Defendants agree.5
`
`FISI again expands these terms beyond their meaning in then-existing USB standard, resulting in
`
`piecemeal constructions inconsistent with a POSA’s understanding, all in order to capture new
`
`
`5 “USB communication path” as recited in claim 17 of the ’766 patent is limited because it
`provides an antecedent basis for the term “the path”. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l. Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`8
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-13
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 4742
`
`USB standards inconsistent with what existed at the time. Ex. 11 §§ 4.1.1 (bus topology
`
`“communication path”), 10.2 (host controller), 11.12 (hub controller); Ex. 12 ¶ 92-94. FISI argues
`
`that the “USB communication path” and “USB controller” described in the specification are
`
`different from those in USB 2.0. Brief at 6, 10. But that is incorrect. As with the USB connector,
`
`the USB communication path and USB controller described in USB 2.0 are capable of performing
`
`at least USB data communications. Supra at 8. To find otherwise, would completely read out the
`
`term “USB.” Order at 30-31.
`
`3.
`
`“USB port,” “USB cable,” and “USB interface”
`
`The Court construed “USB port,” “USB cable,” and “USB interface” to have their plain
`
`meaning in light of its construction of “USB.” Order at 31. Defendants agree. FISI expressly
`
`adopts the Court’s construction. Brief at 3, 4, n.4. But to the extent that FISI attempts to backtrack
`
`and argues to limit the construction to their purported plain meaning without reference to “USB,”
`
`that is improper and contrary to the Court’s ruling, and thus should be rejected.6 See supra at 2-4.
`
`C.
`
`“USB Adapter” (’111: all claims)
`
`Defendants
`FISI
`Limiting as part of preamble; no construction
`Not limiting; alternatively, power supply
`necessary outside of “USB”; alternatively:
`configured to supply power from a power
`adapter specified in USB.
`source to a USB device
`“USB adapter” should be found limiting because it “recites essential structure that is
`
`important to the invention [and] necessary to give meaning to the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann
`
`Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “USB adapter” is not only important to the invention;
`
`the specification describes it as being the invention. The title of the ’111 patent is “Universal
`
`Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device”; the summary of the invention describes “a USB adapter
`
`for providing a source of power to a mobile device through a USB port;” and the embodiments are
`
`
`6 Substantively, Defendants adopt all arguments relating to these terms asserted in Samsung’s
`responsive brief. Samsung, Dkt. 106.
`
`9
`
`Fundamental Ex 2014-14
`LG et al. v Fundamental
`IPR2018-00676
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 02/21/18 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 4743
`
`discussed under the headings of, for example, “Exemplary USB Adapter.” ’111 at 2:19-21, 6:54,
`
`9:1-2, 10:43. Further, “USB adapter” is essential structure; it is the structural framework into
`
`which subcomponents of the invention - “a plug unit,” “a power converter,” “an identification
`
`subsystem,” and “a USB connector” - are placed. ’111, claim 1, Fig. 2. Without these components
`
`being part of a USB adapter, they would essentially be a meaningless group of circuits scattered
`
`on a table. Moreover, FISI’s disclaimer that “the Fischer Patents make clear that the USB adapter
`
`(which contains the USB controller) is not a USB host or